A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Czernobog]

I don't want states making those decisions. Those are personal, private matters, and individuals should be making those decisions.

Sorry but it's certainly not personal and private if it effects the life of another human being.

Using your Free Dictionary that you like so much:

a member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or child

Now, "child", in that Free Dictionary, includes a definition of "infant: fetus". Interestingly enough, "fetus" does not include child:

fe·tus
(fē′təs)
n. pl. fe·tus·es
1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

In fact, it specifically notes that after birth there is no longer a fetus. This is because, after birth there is a baby, infant, child. A fetus is not a child. a fetus is not a human being. A fetus is a potential human being, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Iceweasel]

Babies don't have voting rights either so your point makes no sense.

Who said anything about voting. Fetuses have no. Rights. There is not one jot of the constitution that confers rights to a fetus. This is why your lot keeps trying to pass those stupid personhood amendments, trying to extend the Constitution to fetuses. Which, in turn, is why I find it so humourous when any of you mock my use of the word "personhood", since it was your side that made the argument that a fetus is a "person", and coined the word "personhood" with the stupid amendment.

Even your stupid "fetal homicide" laws were not designed with the "rights" of fetuses in mind. They were designed to get justice for the pregnant women who were victims of violent crimes, and were forced to miscarry against their will.

I mentioned voting but the point was lost on you. Babies can't vote so basing your argument on rights makes no sense. And I don't want federal government making those kinds of decisions, abortion, gay marriage, trannies in the restroom, etc. should be up to the states.

I don't want states making those decisions. Those are personal, private matters, and individuals should be making those decisions.

Babies can't feed themselves, should the state step in if a person decides to make the private choice to stop feeding it?

A fetus is not a baby. A fetus is not a baby. One more time, a fetus is not a baby. You moralists continue to try to make the words fetus, and baby interchangeable. They aren't.
And to answer your question, no they shouldn't. When I was growing up, ya know what one of the possible punishments was for breaking the rules? "You're going to bed without supper," That is choosing not to feed me. And guess what? None of us growing up at the time felt so abused that we thought the government should come in and interfere with our parents parenting.

You nor I are in the position to dictate exactly when it goes from fetus to baby, those are subjective terms. I responded to your position about the state not helping an innocent life. And I wasn't talking about skipping a meal. Fuck you are stupid!

 

[Czernobog]

Who said anything about voting. Fetuses have no. Rights. There is not one jot of the constitution that confers rights to a fetus. This is why your lot keeps trying to pass those stupid personhood amendments, trying to extend the Constitution to fetuses. Which, in turn, is why I find it so humourous when any of you mock my use of the word "personhood", since it was your side that made the argument that a fetus is a "person", and coined the word "personhood" with the stupid amendment.

Even your stupid "fetal homicide" laws were not designed with the "rights" of fetuses in mind. They were designed to get justice for the pregnant women who were victims of violent crimes, and were forced to miscarry against their will.

I mentioned voting but the point was lost on you. Babies can't vote so basing your argument on rights makes no sense. And I don't want federal government making those kinds of decisions, abortion, gay marriage, trannies in the restroom, etc. should be up to the states.

I don't want states making those decisions. Those are personal, private matters, and individuals should be making those decisions.

Babies can't feed themselves, should the state step in if a person decides to make the private choice to stop feeding it?

A fetus is not a baby. A fetus is not a baby. One more time, a fetus is not a baby. You moralists continue to try to make the words fetus, and baby interchangeable. They aren't.
And to answer your question, no they shouldn't. When I was growing up, ya know what one of the possible punishments was for breaking the rules? "You're going to bed without supper," That is choosing not to feed me. And guess what? None of us growing up at the time felt so abused that we thought the government should come in and interfere with our parents parenting.

You nor I are in the position to dictate exactly when it goes from fetus to baby, those are subjective terms. I responded to your position about the state not helping an innocent life. And I wasn't talking about skipping a meal. Fuck you are stupid!

You fuckers keep insisting that definitions matter, yet whenever a definition says something that does not agree with your position, wellll...let's just ignore that definition. Fuck you are stupid, rude, self-righteous, and inconsistent!

 

[Chuz Life]

Despite your diatribe, your opinion still doesn't matter. Women have the right to choose for themselves. They always have and they always will. You lose this argument every time because you never will be able to tell women what to do with their own bodies. Being a conservative means you're too fucked in the head to not grasp that reality.

So you bleat on.

Well no... women haven't always had the right to choose for themselves. That's a relatively new development. I don't care what women do with their own body, I care about the rights of the unborn human being inside their body. Women also have the right to drive their own cars... they don't have the right to mow down pedestrians in the process.

If being conservative means you respect life, I guess I am guilty of that.

That's just it. As much as you would like to insist otherwise, unborn fetuses do not have rights. Nowhere in the Constitution did it ever extend rights to unborn fetuses.

Which is why your lot keeps trying to pass those stupid personhood amendments, trying to extend the Constitution to fetuses. Which, in turn, is why I find it so humourous that you mock my use of the word "personhood", since it was your side that made the argument that a fetus is a "person", and coined the word "personhood" with the stupid amendment.

Constitutional rights are not "extended" to human beings/ persons. If you are a human being, your constitutional rights as such are automatic. And because the scotus got that part wrong in roe (as they did in dredd Scott) they will eventually have to overturn that decision.

 

[Czernobog]

Despite your diatribe, your opinion still doesn't matter. Women have the right to choose for themselves. They always have and they always will. You lose this argument every time because you never will be able to tell women what to do with their own bodies. Being a conservative means you're too fucked in the head to not grasp that reality.

So you bleat on.

Well no... women haven't always had the right to choose for themselves. That's a relatively new development. I don't care what women do with their own body, I care about the rights of the unborn human being inside their body. Women also have the right to drive their own cars... they don't have the right to mow down pedestrians in the process.

If being conservative means you respect life, I guess I am guilty of that.

That's just it. As much as you would like to insist otherwise, unborn fetuses do not have rights. Nowhere in the Constitution did it ever extend rights to unborn fetuses.

Which is why your lot keeps trying to pass those stupid personhood amendments, trying to extend the Constitution to fetuses. Which, in turn, is why I find it so humourous that you mock my use of the word "personhood", since it was your side that made the argument that a fetus is a "person", and coined the word "personhood" with the stupid amendment.

Constitutional rights are not "extended" to human beings/ persons. If you are a human being, your constitutional rights as such are automatic. And because the scotus got that part wrong in roe (as they did in dredd Scott) they will eventually have to overturn that decision.

Then I want my fetus to be allowed to own a gun. Since it is a "human being", it has that right.

 

[Chuz Life]

Looks like you have a toggle switch for a brain. You define a baby as when they leave the hospital.

Yep, pretty damn close as that's when it actually is a baby.

According to you. Tell that to a mother who is six months in and has the room already decorated. Or the cops when she gets stabbed and the baby dies. You live in a shallow world, under the skin it's fetal tissue, cut her open, pull it out and it's a baby. Just like magic.

Having a baby is not the same as you have a baby. Common sense.

And yeah, if sucks when you lose one too early but that is the nature of the beast.

If it dies before exiting the birth canal it never was a baby to you. So no mother ever lost a premature baby. Sucks to have to slip and slide around to defend your view.

You don't have to be a person, to die. Fetuses die and are spontaneously aborted all day long. And sometimes they die but don't abort, which can be very dangerous, and one of the reasons for legal induced abortion.

You are way too hung up on what might have been a person, but in the end wasn't? There's a laundry list of why that might be, most of which we have nothing to do with, it just is what it is.

Pro-choice people know what's in there, and what it could become with time and luck. That changes nothing, it is what it is and when you need a microscope to see it, that's not a person so don't try calling it one.

If it is a person in any one situation or legal setting (i.e. fetal HOMICIDE laws) it is a person in all other legal settings. Else there is a MAJOR inconsistency in the law and the government is complicit in the violation of those children's rights.

Again , like it was complicit in the Dredd Scott case.

 

[chikenwing]

Despite your diatribe, your opinion still doesn't matter. Women have the right to choose for themselves. They always have and they always will. You lose this argument every time because you never will be able to tell women what to do with their own bodies. Being a conservative means you're too fucked in the head to not grasp that reality.

So you bleat on.

Well no... women haven't always had the right to choose for themselves. That's a relatively new development. I don't care what women do with their own body, I care about the rights of the unborn human being inside their body. Women also have the right to drive their own cars... they don't have the right to mow down pedestrians in the process.

If being conservative means you respect life, I guess I am guilty of that.

That's just it. As much as you would like to insist otherwise, unborn fetuses do not have rights. Nowhere in the Constitution did it ever extend rights to unborn fetuses.

Which is why your lot keeps trying to pass those stupid personhood amendments, trying to extend the Constitution to fetuses. Which, in turn, is why I find it so humourous that you mock my use of the word "personhood", since it was your side that made the argument that a fetus is a "person", and coined the word "personhood" with the stupid amendment.

Constitutional rights are not "extended" to human beings/ persons. If you are a human being, your constitutional rights as such are automatic. And because the scotus got that part wrong in roe (as they did in dredd Scott) they will eventually have to overturn that decision.

Then I want my fetus to be allowed to own a gun. Since it is a "human being", it has that right.

Then buy one ,would a rational person give a gun to a two year old?

Your grasping at ridiculous examples,so you can feel like your winning,your just making yourself look stupid,you should stop.

 

[Chuz Life]

LMAO... there is nothing "metaphysical" about physical state of being.

Bullshit! It's like defining Red as "The essence of redness". While that may be a definition, it is a definition without substance, or meaning. It is a definition of a four-year-old.

Okay. A fetus is genetically human. It is "in a state of being". A cancer cluster is both of those things. Should we call a cancer cluster a "human being", and determine that it is murder to destroy it?

Noun
being ‎(plural beings)

1. A living creature.
2. The state or fact of existence, consciousness, or life, or something in such a state.
3. (philosophy) That which has actuality (materially or in concept).
4. (philosophy) One's basic nature, or the qualities thereof; essence or personality.

I'm sorry if you are too illiterate to comprehend word definitions. Perhaps that's the root of your problem here? You also seem to be having difficulty comprehending what an "organism" is... (In biology, an organism is any contiguous living system, such as an animal, plant, fungus, or bacterium. All known types of organisms are capable of some degree of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development and homeostasis.)

Cancer clusters are not contiguous living systems. They are mutations of cells within an organism. Fingernails and appendixes are also not organisms. A fetus is an independent living organism from point of conception.

Yup. It's an animal or plant that lives in or on another (the host) from which it obtains nourishment. The host does not benefit from the association and is often harmed by it. I'll let you figure out what kind of an organism that is.

Nope... Sorry... Cancer is not an animal or plant living inside another. It is not a living organism according to the scientific definition of an organism because it doesn't meet that criteria. A tapeworm is an organism.

Oh. Sorry. I was unclear. I was agreeing with you that a fetus is an organism - a parasite.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Parasites do not attach them selves to their own species. Did they not even offer a biology class at your special ed school?

 

[Boss]

fetus is not a baby. A fetus is not a baby. One more time, a fetus is not a baby.

A fetus is also not a teenager or geriatric. It's not a toddler, a preschooler, an adolescent or adult. What it IS... is a human being. It's in the FETAL stage of development.

 

[chikenwing]

Slaves and blacks once had no rights too, women as well. That didn't stand because, ultimately, what is right is going to always prevail in a free society. You'd think that liberal activists would know this instinctively.

Ya know. In retrospect, I hope that you guys actually succeed. The downside is you will have banned abortion. The upside is that I will get to insist that my fetus has a Constitutional right to all of the enumerated right in the Constitution. For instance, it will be really fun watching you try to explain why, since my fetus is a person, it does not have the second amendment right to own a gun.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Have you been drinking?

Why? Does the idea that a fetus has a right to own a gun seem absurd to you?

The absurdity is you bringing gun ownership into the thread .

Why? You guys want personhood to be conferred to fetuses, giving them Constitutional protection. shouldn't that mean that they have access to all of the Constitution's rights, and protections?

Yes they should,after all that's the point.

 

[Boss]

I don't want states making those decisions. Those are personal, private matters, and individuals should be making those decisions.

Sorry but it's certainly not personal and private if it effects the life of another human being.

Using your Free Dictionary that you like so much:

a member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or child

Now, "child", in that Free Dictionary, includes a definition of "infant: fetus". Interestingly enough, "fetus" does not include child:

fe·tus
(fē′təs)
n. pl. fe·tus·es
1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

In fact, it specifically notes that after birth there is no longer a fetus. This is because, after birth there is a baby, infant, child. A fetus is not a child. a fetus is not a human being. A fetus is a potential human being, nothing more, nothing less.

Nope.. .A fetus IS a human being. Not a "potential" one... but a human being in the fetal development stage. It is a potential infant.. a potential toddler... a potential teenager... a potential adult. An infant is a potential toddler... a potential teenager... a potential adult... a toddler is a potential teenager... a potential adult.... a teenager is a potential adult. ALL OF THEM are human beings. They began being human beings at point of conception.

 

[Czernobog]

Why? You guys want personhood to be conferred to fetuses, giving them Constitutional protection. shouldn't that mean that they have access to all of the Constitution's rights, and protections?

Yes they should,after all that's the point.

Then my fetus should have the right to own a gun.

 

[hadit]

Nope. You don't get to take that position. I just agreed with your compatriot, remember? I am on board with banning abortion. Now women who cannot afford children must be forced to bear children. How are they going to feed them?

And don't bother with adoption, because that just puts the children in state-funded orphanages. You are still feeding them.

I gave you the answer a week ago. DNA tests and the father's responsibility as well. I don't care if you don't like it, pretending you have not seen an answer just proves you are a stupid hack, nothing more.

Except you presume that the fathers are any more financially able to support the children than the mothers are. On what do you base this presumption?

This is an interesting line of debate. Let's open it up a little. Smoking is a voluntary activity from which some people receive pleasure. Sex is also a voluntary activity from which some people receive pleasure. Smoking carries with it the possibility of contracting cancer, which becomes quite expensive to treat. Sex carries with it the possibility of child birth and child rearing, which also becomes quite expensive.

Now, if smokers face pressure to stop doing something they find pleasurable because they cost society a lot of money to treat them, should not also young people face pressure to stop doing something they find pleasurable because they cost society a lot of money to deal with the children they produce (to say nothing of the non-monetary cost to society of abortion)? Yet, smoking is viewed with horror while young people having irresponsible sex is virtually lauded (how many movies today view smoking by college students favorably vs the number that view promiscuity by college students favorably?). We are not very consistent in the things to which we hold people accountable.

The bottom line is the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules, and when anyone other than the individual pays for something that individual wants, there will be strings attached and limits set.

 

[hadit]

Why? You guys want personhood to be conferred to fetuses, giving them Constitutional protection. shouldn't that mean that they have access to all of the Constitution's rights, and protections?

Yes they should,after all that's the point.

Then my fetus should have the right to own a gun.

Did Chris Reeve lose his right to own a gun when he was forced to rely on a ventilator for his life? No. Does a person lose his right to own a gun when he is in a coma? No. Thusly, it does not matter whether a person can use or even know what a gun is for them to have that right.

Hmmm, good thought. I wonder how many abortions would happen if the intended target was armed and could shoot back?

 

[Czernobog]

I don't want states making those decisions. Those are personal, private matters, and individuals should be making those decisions.

Sorry but it's certainly not personal and private if it effects the life of another human being.

Using your Free Dictionary that you like so much:

a member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or child

Now, "child", in that Free Dictionary, includes a definition of "infant: fetus". Interestingly enough, "fetus" does not include child:

fe·tus
(fē′təs)
n. pl. fe·tus·es
1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

In fact, it specifically notes that after birth there is no longer a fetus. This is because, after birth there is a baby, infant, child. A fetus is not a child. a fetus is not a human being. A fetus is a potential human being, nothing more, nothing less.

Nope.. .A fetus IS a human being. Not a "potential" one... but a human being in the fetal development stage. It is a potential infant.. a potential toddler... a potential teenager... a potential adult. An infant is a potential toddler... a potential teenager... a potential adult... a toddler is a potential teenager... a potential adult.... a teenager is a potential adult. ALL OF THEM are human beings. They began being human beings at point of conception.

Not according to the definition of human being.

 

[Czernobog]

Why? You guys want personhood to be conferred to fetuses, giving them Constitutional protection. shouldn't that mean that they have access to all of the Constitution's rights, and protections?

Yes they should,after all that's the point.

Then my fetus should have the right to own a gun.

Did Chris Reeve lose his right to own a gun when he was forced to rely on a ventilator for his life? No. Does a person lose his right to own a gun when he is in a coma? No. Thusly, it does not matter whether a person can use or even know what a gun is for them to have that right.

Hmmm, good thought. I wonder how many abortions would happen if the intended target was armed and could shoot back?

So, you agree that a fetus has the right to bear arms?

 

[Iceweasel]

I mentioned voting but the point was lost on you. Babies can't vote so basing your argument on rights makes no sense. And I don't want federal government making those kinds of decisions, abortion, gay marriage, trannies in the restroom, etc. should be up to the states.

I don't want states making those decisions. Those are personal, private matters, and individuals should be making those decisions.

Babies can't feed themselves, should the state step in if a person decides to make the private choice to stop feeding it?

A fetus is not a baby. A fetus is not a baby. One more time, a fetus is not a baby. You moralists continue to try to make the words fetus, and baby interchangeable. They aren't.
And to answer your question, no they shouldn't. When I was growing up, ya know what one of the possible punishments was for breaking the rules? "You're going to bed without supper," That is choosing not to feed me. And guess what? None of us growing up at the time felt so abused that we thought the government should come in and interfere with our parents parenting.

You nor I are in the position to dictate exactly when it goes from fetus to baby, those are subjective terms. I responded to your position about the state not helping an innocent life. And I wasn't talking about skipping a meal. Fuck you are stupid!

You fuckers keep insisting that definitions matter, yet whenever a definition says something that does not agree with your position, wellll...let's just ignore that definition. Fuck you are stupid, rude, self-righteous, and inconsistent!

I'm not 'you fuckers', I am a person thankyouverymuch. I said I'm not in a position to define exactly when it's a baby, neither are you. It's a subjective term, not a legal one. Where am I inconsistent?

 

[Boss]

Then my fetus should have the right to own a gun.

It should have but it doesn't. Let's work on it's right to life first.

 

[Czernobog]

I don't want states making those decisions. Those are personal, private matters, and individuals should be making those decisions.

Babies can't feed themselves, should the state step in if a person decides to make the private choice to stop feeding it?

A fetus is not a baby. A fetus is not a baby. One more time, a fetus is not a baby. You moralists continue to try to make the words fetus, and baby interchangeable. They aren't.
And to answer your question, no they shouldn't. When I was growing up, ya know what one of the possible punishments was for breaking the rules? "You're going to bed without supper," That is choosing not to feed me. And guess what? None of us growing up at the time felt so abused that we thought the government should come in and interfere with our parents parenting.

You nor I are in the position to dictate exactly when it goes from fetus to baby, those are subjective terms. I responded to your position about the state not helping an innocent life. And I wasn't talking about skipping a meal. Fuck you are stupid!

You fuckers keep insisting that definitions matter, yet whenever a definition says something that does not agree with your position, wellll...let's just ignore that definition. Fuck you are stupid, rude, self-righteous, and inconsistent!

I'm not 'you fuckers', I am a person thankyouverymuch. I said I'm not in a position to define exactly when it's a baby, neither are you. It's a subjective term, not a legal one. Where am I inconsistent?

And I'm not stupid. How about we agree that I won't refer to you as "You fuckers", and you won't call me stupid? You are inconsistent when you claim to use science to prove your point, but when science defines when a fetus stops being a fetus, you say, "No one is in any position to make that determination". Well? Either science is a reliable authority, or it isn't. which is it?

 

[hadit]

Why? You guys want personhood to be conferred to fetuses, giving them Constitutional protection. shouldn't that mean that they have access to all of the Constitution's rights, and protections?

Yes they should,after all that's the point.

Then my fetus should have the right to own a gun.

Did Chris Reeve lose his right to own a gun when he was forced to rely on a ventilator for his life? No. Does a person lose his right to own a gun when he is in a coma? No. Thusly, it does not matter whether a person can use or even know what a gun is for them to have that right.

Hmmm, good thought. I wonder how many abortions would happen if the intended target was armed and could shoot back?

So, you agree that a fetus has the right to bear arms?

I think of more importance is the question of whether an unborn child has the right to life and liberty. Your question is an extreme hypothetical and the reality of the unborn child's situation would not change one iota either way since, like in the case of an adult in a coma, he/she would not be able to use it. The child's situation would, however, change dramatically with the other rights I mentioned.